SHNV's Supporters for Apr. 2012:
Brock Townsend
Faithful Southron, THANK YOU!!

Southern Heritage <br>News and Views: April 2011

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Fairfax Civil War Day Set for May 7

FAIRFAX, Va. — Experience American Civil War camp life and weapon-firing demonstrations during Fairfax Civil War Day to be held from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. May 7 at the Historic Blenheim Estate, 3610 Old Lee Highway. The event kicks off the city’s year-long program of activities commemorating the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War.

Fairfax Civil War Day features re-enactors and activities, including all-day demonstrations on blacksmithing with an 1862 traveling forge, railroads, and soldier research. Special guests will portray historical figures General Robert E. Lee, Colonel John S. Mosby, photographer Matthew Brady and a “Yankee Schoolmarm.”

Scheduled events include talks on a variety of Civil War-related topics — slave life, the telegraph, soldiers’ graves, special presentations on Lee’s resignation and the Skirmish at Fairfax — in the award-winning Civil War Interpretive Center. The center will feature guided tours of its gallery, including exhibits on secession and the Blenheim house attic graffiti.

Other activities include firing demonstrations of a Howitzer cannon artillery gun as well as youth activities, such as a “boot camp” for kids, scavenger hunt and more. Enthusiasts of all ages can enjoy wagon rides through soldier camps, period music by Home Front and dancing with the Victorian Dance Society.

The Blenheim house, built circa 1859, is nationally renown for the Civil War soldier inscriptions left on house walls. The City of Fairfax purchased the Blenheim house and the surrounding 12 acres of land in 1999, and the house currently is under restoration.

Admission is $5 per adult and $3 per child age 12 and younger. Proceeds benefit the restoration and maintenance of the Historic Blenheim Estate. Free parking and shuttle service are provided at Fairfax High School, 3501 Rebel Run.

This event is produced by the City of Fairfax; Historic Fairfax City Inc.; and the 17th Virginia Infantry, Company D “Fairfax Rifles.” For information — including directions, parking, and a complete event schedule, plus a list of the city’s sesquicentennial events — visit or call 703-591-0560.

Thursday, April 28, 2011


MEMPHIS, TN -- Family and friends visiting paralyzed Korean War veteran Perry Thrasher in his room at the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Memphis say hospital police "harassed and threatened" them, temporarily confiscated their cameras and removed pictures from them Wednesday.

The hospital police said they were acting in accordance with a "VA policy" which they would not name or explain, witnesses say.

Several people were in Thrasher's room taking pictures of black Confederate activist H. K. Edgerton visiting Thrasher and presenting him with a full-sized Confederate battle flag. Earlier this month, hospital administrators had demanded that Thrasher, the grandson of a Confederate soldier who died at the Battle of Petersburg, remove a miniature Confederate flag he had placed on the wall inside his own hospital room and put it away it in a drawer because it "offended" unnamed staff and patients.

News of the hospital's action went viral on the Internet and has sent waves of outrage through the South and beyond. Well-wishers have sent Thrasher dozens of letters and cards of encouragement, many containing tiny Confederate flags. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has made him a life member. And The Southern Legal Resource Center and Memphis Attorney T. Tarry Beasley II have sent a letter on behalf of Thrasher to Memphis VA Hospital Director Jay Robinson, demanding that the hospital cite any legal authority they rely on for banning Thrasher's flag from his private room, an action which the SLRC says is in gross violation of the hospital's own Patient Bill of Rights. The letter also demands an explanation of the "policy" under which the hospital police siezed the cameras and removed the pictures.

"It's disgraceful that a veteran who defended his country should be treated in this manner in a Veterans Administration Hospital where the protections of the Bill of Rights should theoretically apply," said Edgerton, himself a Vietnam era veteran.

"Mr. Thrasher displayed his flag to honor the memory of his Great Grandfather, Sgt. Gilbert Thrasher, Co I, 44th Alabama Infantry Regiment who died of wounds received in action at the Siege of Petersburg. We support Mr.Thrasher's stand to honor his ancestor's sacrifice." said Forrest Camp member Karl Amelang.

"This type of outrageous infringement should not happen to a veteran, in America, in a federal facility," said attorney Beasley.

"Ever since this story broke three weeks ago, there has been widespread support and sympathy for Mr. Thrasher. The VA needs to do the right thing and let him display his flag," said Lyons, who is the SLRC's Chief Trial Counsel.

The Southern Legal Resource Center is a non-profit public law firm that advocates on behalf of persons whose civil rights have been infringed in conmnection with Southern heritage issues.

Southern Legal Resource Center
90 Church Street
P.O.Box 1235
Black Mountain, NC 28711

Join us on FACEBOOK

memberships $35.00/yr

Saturday, April 23, 2011

'The Museum of the Confederacy - A Brief Look At A Worsening Situation'

By Valerie Protopapas

Monday, June 2, 2008

The Original Spirit of the Museum of the Confederacy

The glory, the hardships, the heroism of the war were a noble heritage for our children. To keep green such memories and to commemorate such virtues, it is our purpose to gather together and preserve in the Executive Mansion of the Confederacy the sacred relics of those glorious days. [From the first appeal for donations to the Museum in January, 1892]

"The need of an organization to preserve a true and faithful record of the gallant struggle made by the soldiers of the South for independence being keenly felt, the Confederate Memorial Literary Society was chartered and organized under the laws of Virginia, its object being to teach all future generations the true history of the war and the principles for which these soldiers laid down their lives."
[From the first paragraph of the Introduction Page: Catalogue of the Confederate Museum of the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, 1905]

Dedication of Administrators from Earlier Days

"(W)e must pray that others will rise up to carry on the trust."
[Former Board President Sally Archer Anderson, 1926]

Warnings of a New Direction

"We're the Museum of the Confederacy, not the Museum for the Confederacy"
[Former director Robin Reed, 1988-2001*]
[*dates approximate]

"It's not a memorial or a shrine, it's a museum and research center."
[Present Director S. Waite Rawls]

Antecedents of the Current Situation

Present Director of the MoC, S. Waite Rawls has rightly declared that the Museum of the Confederacy should "tell our story" and by that, one assumes he means the story of the attempt by certain Southern states to secede from the Union - including what brought the people of those states to this position, what they did and the constitutional basis for their actions, the war they waged against the attempt by the federal government and the states remaining in the Union to forcibly return them to that entity and so forth. Unfortunately, those whom Rawls has chosen to tell that "story" are men like Gary Gallagher, co-author of "The Myth of the Lost Cause" and Irwin Jordan—a so-called "black Confederate expert"—whose book refers to these brave black men who fought beside their fellow Confederates rather than in segregated commands under white officers as "zealots of the wrong".

Neither is Rawls the first administrator of the MoC who seems to think that "our story" is best told by "those people" to quote General Robert E. Lee. Indeed, he seems to be only the last of a rather long and sorry parade of like-minded individuals. One of Rawls' predecessors opened the Museum for lectures by such as Alan Nolan, author of the book, "Lee Considered". Nolan is a lawyer from Wisconsin, a notable champion of the Union's "Iron Brigade" and no friend of Lee or the Confederacy. In 1999, Curator Malinda Collier was quoted as saying in an article on the Museum's plans for a 130th year exhibit on Robert E. Lee, that the exhibition would attempt to explain "how this man who led a traitorous army" nevertheless rose from the status of sectional hero to one of the foremost American heroes of all time. Most recently, in continuation of this apparent celebration of all things hostile to the Confederacy and its heroes, the prestigious "Jefferson Davis Award" was bestowed upon a work entitled "Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters by Elizabeth Brown Pryor. This book was advertised as a revelation of Lee based upon newly discovered correspondence but instead, it is a politically correct character assassination consisting of the author's perceptions of Lee which are supposedly validated by a very few previously unpublished letters. Of course, there were kudos from the usual establishment "historians and critics"—and outcries from Museum members about what was either a total lapse of judgment on the part of the Administration or another example of the deviation in the museum's goals and policies from its founding principles. In fact, given what has happened since Director Rawls' installation, one has to wonder just whose "story" this gentleman wants told.

The attitude that Director Rawls is ostensibly attempting to counter by virtue of his ongoing collaboration with these foes of Southern culture, history and heritage, was clearly enunciated by author James McPherson. In 1999 McPherson gave an interview with Ed Sebesta on the liberal Pacifica Radio network program Democracy Now! on the subject of the Museum of the Confederacy and its Lone Star Ball fundraising event as well as Sebesta's views on the historical Confederacy and modern day organizations connected with it. Sebesta stated that the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy were created with the motive of celebrating the Confederacy, including the use of slavery in the Confederate economy, and white supremacy. The interview with McPherson …included the following statement: "…I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden agenda…of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is…(the) hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several southern states."

Apparently, however, MoC's Administration had made sufficient "brownie points" with McPherson, for him to state that it had changed its orientation, from its original purpose of celebrating the Confederacy: "Over time, and especially in the last decade or two," said McPherson, "it (the MoC) has become a much more professional, research-oriented, professional exhibit-oriented facility . . ." In other words, the "politically correct" Mr. McPherson approved of the MoC and its present "orientation". Thus, the actions of Director Reed and Curator Collier, among others I'm sure, had won over McPherson and perhaps some of his fellow travelers. But one has to wonder if in doing so, their actions compensated for the abandonment of the original mission of the MoC as stated in writing by its founders and their betrayal of most of the present contributors to the Museum of whom one must doubt that either Mr. McPherson or Mr. Sebasta in fact, is.

As a further attempt to "revitalize" the institution, present Director Rawls told a reporter that he was thinking of partnering the MoC with the slavery museum in Fredericksburg as well as the planned museum at Fort Monroe should the MoC be moved in whole or in part to those locations. Parenthetically, as Fort Monroe was a haven for runaway slaves, one must suppose that any museum at that location would be largely if not principally devoted to that issue. Yet Rawls seems unconcerned that such establishments tend to be extremely one-sided in their treatment of the very complex subject of slavery - and are usually rabidly anti-Confederate in their focus. However, even Rawls' efforts are not universally successful and there were considerable negative responses from Lexington's "black community" and their white supporters when it was discovered that Lexington was being considered as a site for the MoC. One Al Hockaday—owner of two local stores, we are told—voiced his less than rational concerns about the impact of the MoC on Lexington as a whole. "I think the negative impacts would be more than the city could bear," this gentleman opined and further predicted that minority enrollment would drastically diminish at local universities because the museum would erode the town's social climate. One wonders about the intelligence of people who entertain—much less publicly express—such grossly irrational and supremely ignorant viewpoints! Nonetheless, despite the stupidity of these comments, Rawls addressed them by assuring Mr. Hockaday and others that the MoC is "not a memorial or a shrine. It's a museum and research center." Sheryl Wagner, director of marketing for Rockbridge tourism, pointed out that there had been "miscommunication" about the name. "You have to consider that the museum is about learning, not promoting the Confederacy." Apparently, Rawls believes that these are the people and the communities that would "enhance" the future of the Museum. That being the case, one has to wonder what sort of "future" Mr. Rawls envisions for the institution if he finds these sentiments and those who express them, acceptable and even positive.

If this—and other incidents too numerous to mention—weren’t enough, Director Rawls has also determined that the Museum of the Confederacy needs the "blessing" of the NAACP. The ongoing assault by that organization on all things traditionally Southern and/or Confederate is well known and undeniable. In fact, its actions have prolonged its existence far beyond any usefulness - and made a considerable profit out of being "offended" by all things Southern, demanding that they be removed, expunged and/or buried in the deepest possible pit, never again to see the light of day. Therefore, it is hardly strange that no "official blessing" was forthcoming from these overly-sensitive souls when Rawls approached them at one meeting. However, our intrepid Director was thrown a crumb for his conscientious groveling when the Spotsylvania NAACP graciously consented to consider the matter providing, of course, that the MoC tells "the whole story" of the "Civil War" (sic). Those familiar with the lexicon of political correctness know instinctively that this means "tell it our way or else!"

Yet, this might not be a problem given Mr. Rawls' understanding of the patrons he wishes to attract to the MoC. In a statement made to the Fort Monroe organization in an attempt to make the institution more "palatable", Rawls complained that those criticizing the Museum have misperceptions and that, its visitors, in Rawls' words are "...not the redneck in the pickup truck with the T-shirt on that you might think of." Rather, according to Rawls, visitors to the Confederacy museum are "well-educated, retired, married couples who are history buffs" . These sentiments—clearly illustrative of Rawls' elitism—require no comment; they speak for themselves.

Finally, according to the report on the Fort Monroe plan by Conover Hunt, the authority's interim executive director, the idea was to bring in experts in African-American history, Union history and Confederate history with said "experts" collaborating at a symposium and offering a comprehensive plan for a museum campus. But the question then is, whose "experts"? Does anyone seriously believe that they will not be the same "experts" who have been defining the era's history from the beginning? Consequently, can any intelligent person believe that the "Confederacy" will receive objective, fair and balanced treatment? The answer to that is, I believe, painfully obvious.

How did Rawls react to all of the foregoing? Well, among other things, he openly considered removing the name "Confederate" from the title of the institution! With what he would have replaced it one cannot possibly imagine, but it is indicative of the direction in which this institution has been going for far too long that the matter was even broached. And with regards to the NAACP, Rawls is on record as saying, "One of the things I would love to have in the Museum of the Confederacy here is an NAACP meeting. It would send a signal to all Americans of what we are all about." It certainly would do that! But to the people for whom this institution is not just a collection of relics from a dead past, the "signal" sent by such an arrangement would be unjustifiable, undesirable and, given the NAACP's sordid history, intolerable.

The crux of the problem was brought to light in an April 4th, 2007 newspaper article in the Washington Post. Under the headline:…the onetime "Shrine of the South"…faces an uncertain future—History's Changing Tide:

"Attendance (for the MoC) has dropped by nearly half over the past decade…(a)nd this is in Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy…It may even have to change its name. That same doleful report said the Museum of the Confederacy, though it has made efforts to distance itself from being an unabashed shrine, still ‘conjures up in the public mind images of slavery, racism, and intolerance…[It] carries enormous, intransigent, and negative intellectual and emotional baggage.'"

The article then quotes Rawls as saying, " ‘…the museum was where Confederate veterans came to give their items to make a statement. Richmond was the epicenter of the Civil War…So yes, there's a symbolic message to our moving.' [and can't we all guess what that message is!]

"But (the article states) it's also about a historic shift in the mind-set of the white South, whose psychological underpinnings were held together for more than a century by the romantic ideal of "the lost cause" of the Confederacy. This held the antebellum world as a largely mythological place, a land of moonlight and magnolias, of "Gone With the Wind," of mint juleps and Henry Timrod's ‘Ode to the Confederate Dead at Magnolia Cemetery':

Stoop, angels, hither from the skies!
There is no holier spot of ground
Than where defeated valor lies…
Swept Away By History.

"These sorts of atmospherics floated about in the cultural id, but the tangible remnants of the belief were preserved here (the MoC): Robert E. Lee's uniform, the plumed hat of J.E.B. Stuart, hundreds of battle flags, thousands of soldiers' letters from mud-filled trenches that soon would become their graves. People brought such things from across the war-ravaged South, thousands of them, artifacts presented with such reverence that they were called ‘sacred relics.'"


So here, in a nutshell, is the course on which the Administration of the MoC has chosen to embark and the reasons for that choice. Though the North is filled with "shrines" to those who died in order to coerce the South by military might back into a union that the vast majority of its people had rejected, the South apparently is not permitted any such shrine to the memory of those who resisted that tyranny with their last full measure of devotion. In fact, it probably won't even be permitted to retain as historical relics the artifacts of its past because they "offend" the sensibilities of the politically correct - black and white. In the meanwhile, it seems that the present Administration of the Museum of the Confederacy is doing its damnedest to make the transition from shrine to tomb as rapid and as covert as possible.


By Bob Hurst

I recently had a very pleasant experience involving some students from Florida State University who were enrolled in the ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) program at the school.

It all began when Major Marshall Baldwin, a member of the ROTC staff at FSU, phoned me and asked if I would be interested in joining him and and a group of ROTC students at the Natural Bridge Battlefield the following Friday afternoon. Major Baldwin was taking the students to visit the battlefield and also planned to involve them in an exercise regarding tactics and strategy. The major thought that I might be able to add some insight on the battle and also on the Confederate Cause, in general.

I readily agreed to meet the group at Natural Bridge.

I always enjoy being around bright young people and especially those who have an appreciation for the military. I also enjoy talking with young people (and older people, too) about the Confederacy because, I know from experience, many of the things they are taught in school (or have learned from the media) are slanted with a strong bias against anything Confederate.

Major Baldwin told me that the students had already heard one presentation on the Battle of Natural Bridge by a student who had been given the topic as a research assignment. Rather than replowing ground, I decided to discuss with the students some aspects of the Great War of 1861-65 from a Southern perspective. I felt certain that many of the things I discussed would be from a different viewpoint than the ROTC students were accustomed to. I discussed topics such as slavery not being the primary cause of the War, how the Emancipation Proclamation was a hoax and did not free anyone, how the North was not truly interested in ending slavery, how the War was a fiscal war as were all wars and how those who fought for the South were not traitors as they are so often portrayed as being by those
thick-as-a-brick types who have strong opinions but little historical knowledge.

One thing these young cadets did know, as I suspected they would, is how the ROTC Corps at FSU is one of an elite group of only three among all the colleges in the country that are certified to fly a battle streamer with their corps flag. They, of course, all gave a big "hoo-ah" to this. I was also pleased that they were aware of the other two colleges whose ROTC program had this honor.

As I thought about these things on my way back to Tallahassee, I realized that I had never written an article about these schools and the acts of valor on the part of their cadets that earned them the honor of flying a battle streamer.

I will correct that oversight with this month's article.

Since I have written about the Battle of Natural Bridge before and since so many in this area (with the exception of the recent transplants) are already well-familiar with the story of the encounter, I will only touch briefly on this last significant Confederate victory of the War.

The battle at Natural Bridge was fought on March 6, 1865. A Union force of approximately 1000 troops under the command of Brigadier General John Newton had come ashore two days earlier near the St. Marks lighthouse. Their purported mission was to take Tallahassee and then move on toThomasville, Georgia to release some Union prisoners that were supposed to be held in captivity there. It is unlikely that there actually were prisoners being held in Thomasville.

When the federals were unable to get across the St. Marks River at Newport, they set their sights on an alternative sight upriver a bit at the natural bridge. By the time they reached the natural bridge on March 6, there was already a contingent of Confederates under Major General Samuel Jones and Brigadier General William Miller dug in and waiting for them. By most estimates the Confederate forces, which consisted primarily of home guard units with some regular forces, numbered a good bit less than the federal forces.

Among the Confederate troops was a contingent of approximately 50 young cadets from the West Florida Seminary (present day Florida State University) who played an integral role in turning back the yankees and sent them scurrying back to their ships which were waiting in the Gulf of Mexico.

This Confederate victory kept Tallahassee from falling to the yanks (the only Confederate capital east of the Mississippi River not to fall) and, more importantly, spared the Big Bend area the infrastructure destruction and rape and pillage that had occurred in other parts of the South that had fallen to the yankee horde.

For their valor in combat, the cadets earned for the school the privilege of flying a battle streamer.

Another school that has the privilege of flying a battle streamer is The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. The Citadel is actually approved to fly nine battle streamers representing eight engagements with the enemy and one streamer representing the Confederate States Army.

The earliest action of the cadets from the school, which was called the South Carolina Military Academy at the time, occurred on January 9, 1861 when cadets fired cannon located on Morris Island at a ship, the "Star of the West", that had been sent to reinforce the Union garrison at Fort Sumter with additional military supplies and troops. ( This was in violation of an agreement that had been reached between South Carolina and the Federal government.) The "Star of the West" was hit three times by the shelling and turned back without delivering its cargo.

These shots were essentially the first shots of the War Between the States, but President James Buchanan, unlike his successor, Abraham Lincoln, was unwilling to risk war by retaliating. Lincoln, of course, desired war and just three months later when the firing on Fort Sumter occurred he had his excuse to launch war.

By some accounts, the cadets from the school took part in 16 battles as part of the Sixth Regiment of South Carolina Cavalry.

The most immortalized of the encounters by the Citadel cadets occurred at the Battle of Trevilian Station near Gordonsville, Virginia on June 11-12, 1864. This was the largest all-cavalry battle of the War and went to the Confederates, under Major General Wade Hampton leading less than 4000 men, over the more than 9000 federals of Major General Philip Sheridan.

Noted artist Mort Kunstler produced a marvelous painting titled "Charge at Trevilian Station" which features the cadets in the thick of the charge with their school flag held aloft.

To me, the most amazing contribution of cadets to the war effort involved the Virginia Military Institute cadets at the Battle of New Market (Virginia) on May 15, 1864.

Union Major General Franz Sigel had been given orders by General Ulysses Grant to clear the Confederates out of the Shenandoah Valley. Sigel's army of between 6000 and 10,000 troops was confronted by the Confederate forces of Major General John C. Breckenridge which numbered about 4000. Among these 4000 were 257 cadets from VMI who had made a 4-day, 80-mile march to reach the battle site.

Breckenridge hoped not to use the VMI cadets since some were as young as 15. The battle was fought in a heavy rain and the VMI cadets were initially placed in the reserve line. As the Confederates advanced they received murderous fire from the federal artillery and infantry and the center of the Confederate line seemed to disappear. Breckenridge first balked at the idea of sending the cadets up the middle but soon gave in to necessity at the urging of his staff officers.

What happened next was incredible! The cadets charged forward through the mud fighting like seasoned veterans and completely turned back the Union charge. Sigel began withdrawing his artillery and the federal line was quickly swept aside by the advancing Confederates led by the VMI cadets. The cadets even captured a cannon and placed the VMI flag atop the weapon.

General Breckenridge was overcome with pride for the cadets and saluted them as he rode by after the Federals began a rapid retreat. Sadly, ten of the cadets died as a result of the battle.

Sigel and his forces withdrew to Strasburg after the defeat and the Shenandoah remained in Confederate hands for a while longer.

I have read in some sources that two other colleges have ROTC corps that are approved to fly battle streamers. One source listed William and Mary because of the large number of students at that school that took part in various actions during the American Revolutionary War. Another source listed the University of Mississippi for action taken by cadets at Vicksburg. I have been unable to confirm either of these claims.

The most definitive source concerning cadet corps certified to fly the streamers is the book FAITHFUL TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF HONOR by Colonel James B. Smith, USA (ret.), which lists only The Citadel, Virginia Military Institute and Florida State University. Until a definitive source comes along with a differing opinion, I'll accept only these three and give a big "hoo-ah" to each one.


PS- All the articles from CONFEDERATE JOURNAL for the first four years of the series are available in book form. These can be ordered online. To order Volume 1 go to and to order Volume 2 go to

Bob Hurst is a Southern Patriot who has a deep interest in Southern history and also the antebellum architecture of the South. He is Commander of Col. David Lang Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans, in Tallahassee and is also 2nd Lt. Commander of the Florida Division, SCV. He can be contacted at or 850-878-7010.

Friday, April 22, 2011

A New England Catechism for the Sesquicentennial

By David Ware

Q: What is the Sesquicentennial?

A: The period of time between 2011-2016 when the United States will commemorate the war that was necessary to free slaves held in bondage by the states of the South who refused to end the practice.

Q: Were the states of the South warned about abolishing slavery before the war?

A: There were numerous indications that slavery was not working. Nat Turner led a rampage through Southampton County, the people of Haiti threw out the French and set up their own nation, and John Brown, financed by six valiant people of the North sparked an incident which should have led to slave uprisings and the annihilation of the South.

Q: Was purchased emancipation seriously tried?

A: Not really, it was economically unviable. The value of slaves has been estimated in today’s dollars at around 16 trillion dollars. It was cheaper to wage war and destruction. There was an added benefit in that precedents were set to align the United States Constitution into the path of unlimited government power that we have today. Further, the war removed the Southern obstacle to proper land use, which is to take every piece of land out of production and use it for commercial and industrial purposes. This is much more efficient and profitable and creates wealth.

Q: Is there any inconsistency between American concern for the Southern slave and the apparent indifference to the death of 46,000 Iraqi children between January and August 1991 due to U. S. sanctions as reported in the “New England Journal of Medicine?”

A: Not at all, remember “it’s all about slavery R .” Africans were owned by Southerners. In Iraq, the people who regrettably died as a result of necessary U. S. action died for a cause. We had to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, later get rid of Sadam Hussein, later establish Democracy and promote stability. These are all acceptable actions for a nation that has been blessed by Providence to know what is best and never makes mistakes. Remember, no Americans were killed by the sanctions; that is what is important.

Q: Didn't New Englanders sell the slaves to the South?

A: Yes. Northern interests did ply the slave trade. Later when Northern states freed their slaves, Northern states sold their slaves down South to keep from losing money.

Q: Well, today the supplier is always blamed for ills. The "greedy developer" causes unwanted population growth by building houses, the drug dealer causes people to take drugs because he supplies the drugs. Why didn't the North cause slavery in this sense?

A. Slavery is different.

Q: Weren’t Americans killed in the “Civil” War?

A: Yes, but just on the Union side. The others were traitors fighting against the will of the people and to keep Africans enslaved. Because the war freed the slaves, it was all “worth it.” Again, remember: “the ends justify the means.”

Q: President Lincoln did not get one electoral vote in the South and in 1861; the South was paying 80% of the Federal Budget. What about this?

A: This is true, but not a reason to leave the Union or go to war. In a democracy, majority rules so that if 50% of the people plus one decides through the magic of democracy, to plunder the rest of the populace, it is the “will of the people” and must be supported through the might of force.

Q: The Soviet Union split up not too long ago. The countries that wished to go were allowed to depart in peace. Why wasn’t the South allowed to do that?

A. The Soviet Union spit up for economic reasons. Remember again that “it’s all about slaveryR” The simple explanation is that the South didn’t have a good reason to leave.

Q: Virginia seceded from the Union. West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Article IV, Section III states that “no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State: nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Why then was Virginia not allowed to secede and West Virginia was?

A. The people of West Virginia stated that they did not want to be part of Virginia anymore. The “will of the people” trumps everything including the Constitution.

Q: Then why wasn’t the will of Virginia and other states granted when they wanted to secede?

A. As noted above "It's all about slaveryR"

Q. I think I am beginning to see. If the cause is good enough, then nothing else, like civility, the Constitution, the law, or anything matters. Correct?

A. Correct.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Confederate Memorial Day Service to be held Sunday, 29 May 2011 at Old Warrenton Cemetery

By Gar Schulin

WARRENTON, VA – The annual Memorial Day observance at the Confederate War Memorial at the Old Warrenton Cemetery in Warrenton, Virginia, will be held Sunday May 29th at 2:00 PM. The memorial observance is open to the public and is co-hosted by the Black Horse Camp #780, Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans; and the Black Horse Chapter #9, Virginia Division United Daughters of the Confederacy. The public is encouraged to participate in this very special annual observance which includes Color Guard members; rifle volleys by the 4th Virginia Cavalry, Company H, “The Black Horse Troop;” and Striblings Battery, who will fire three artillery volleys from their 12-pound Napoleon cannon. Live performance of period music will also pay tribute to Virginia’s fallen defenders.

William M. Wilson, Ph.D, distinguished scholar and author, will deliver the 2011 Memorial Observance keynote address, "The Virtues of Remembering and Mourning."

Dr. Wilson is the Dean of Honors Students at the University of Virginia, and serves as a Professor of Religious Studies. He is the winner of one the University’s highest distinctions, the Algernon Sidney Sullivan Award for teaching and selfless service. Professor Wilson is the author of many articles pertaining to religion, literature, philosophical theology and three volumes of Lectura Dantes Virginiana, and currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Abbeville Institute for the Study of Southern Culture.

As America observes the Sesquicentennial of the 1861-65 epic struggle on our continent, current generations seek a greater understanding of the essential truths underlying the revolutionary rupture of the federative polity of the Founders that resulted in what, arguably, was the bloodiest war of the nineteenth century. In this context, it is worth noting the words written by Miss Ida F. Powell, United Daughters of the Confederacy in May, 1930, “We maintain, that the conflict was not a ‘Civil’ War, but was a ‘War Between the States.’ Each Southern State seceded from the Federal Government after mature consideration, seceded with all the dignity and weight of their State governments and State conventions back of them, and formed an independent constitutional government- the Confederate States of America.”

“The South did not fight to overturn the Federal government. It did not wish to destroy that government and set up a rival administration in its place. The Southern States simply desired to withdraw peaceably from what had hitherto been considered a voluntary union of States, to leave the Northern States intact, with their recognized government untrammeled, and to form an independent government of their own. The South fought to repel invasion, to protect its homes and its inalienable rights as free men, and it was between two constitutionally organized governments that the war was waged.”

It has been written that Virginia is sewn into the very fabric of American history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason and countless other patriots first drew breath on Virginia soil. In many respects, American Independence began with Virginia. It was Richard Henry Lee, delegate from Virginia, who first proposed on June 7, 1776, that the Continental Congress declare independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence was itself a secession document, listing the reasons for the separation from the British Crown. The distinguished Historian Emeritus of the University of South Carolina, Dr. Clyde Wilson, keenly observes Robert E. Lee's decision to resign from the U.S. Army to serve in the defense of the invaded South was one of the most important and monumental decisions in American history, similar to George Washington's gradual increasing resistance to the acts of the British ministry (whereupon he came to believe the English government had a deliberate intent to subvert Virginia's traditional liberty). The progression of Lee's thought in regard to Abraham Lincoln and an increasingly hostile Republican Party toward a large portion of the voluntary Federal Union was exactly the same. Was George Washington, who had held a royal commission, a traitor for fighting the invaders and would-be conquerors of his country? Was he obligated to fight for the King against the American states?

By 1861, faced with the harsh realities of a voluntary Union which had become unworkable, Virginians followed other Southern States in secession after careful deliberations and conventions, and in the aftermath of Lincoln’s announcement of his intention to invade the Southern States by force of arms. To better gauge the sentiments among Fauquier County, Virginia citizens of the mid-19th Century, history has recorded only one man cast a vote for Lincoln at the Old Warrenton Court House in the 1860 Presidential election while having to carry a sidearm to do it. Several months later in 1861, the Fauquier County vote for Virginia secession was 1809 to 4 in favor. Dr. Wilson clearly notes in Virginia and throughout the South, with the carefully considered official act of secession, a solemn act of the sovereign people representing the consent of the people, represented the most fundamental principal of American government.

The Founders bequeathed to us a small, limited national government, essentially providing three functions: law and order; national security (an Army, Navy and a Marine Corps); and delivery of the mail. Prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln, the most interaction any citizen had with their national government was mailing a letter at the Post Office. Much of the balance of power resided among the sovereign States. King George III, when officially recognizing the independence of the former English colonies, cited each one separately by name. It is important to recognize from our vantage point today, the question, "What does it mean to be an American?" has a Jeffersonian answer and a Lincolnian answer. Both views are diametrically opposed to one another.

In our current time, the true causes of the War Between the States are often misrepresented by revisionist historians found throughout academia, and many news media and pop culture outlets. Contemporary Americans know the institution of slavery was and is evil. Most thoughtful and educated Southerners and Northerners alike understood this in 1861 as well. The key point to remember is that in America, slavery was a national blight in 1861 and not just a Southern problem. Quite clearly, less than five percent of the Confederate army soldiers came from families who owned slaves, yet they sacrificed for liberty and constitutional government for four long years under the worst conditions imaginable that had nothing to do with the preservation of slavery. Dr. Donald Livingston of Emory University also notes by 1861, no national party of any significance, since the founding of our nation 70 years earlier, ever advocated or advanced a bill in Congress abolishing the institution of slavery. Lincoln himself once said he could accept slavery lasting for another 100 years provided that it could be confined to the South. Before the war, Lincoln even drafted an emancipation plan for New Jersey that would take effect in 1914.

Contrary to the popular myth widely repeated endlessly today which seeks to characterize the war as a holy crusade to abolish slavery, the historic record reveals twice in 1861, the U.S. Congress affirmed that the war was not waged over the national blight of slavery. Just how far the North and Lincoln were prepared to go in supporting slavery in the South can be seen in the Corwin Amendment, passed on March 2, 1861 with President-Elect Lincoln's personal lobbying efforts, which ordained, "No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere with any state with the domestic institutions thereof including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of the said State." Here, in these very words, the protection of slavery was tied to the Union itself. If the southern States truly wanted to preserve slavery within their borders, all they needed to do was to remain in the Union in the Spring of 1861.

In another formal affirmation the war was not being waged on the issue of slavery, on July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War," the Crittenden Resolution, passed by two-thirds majority of both Houses, that echoed Lincoln's reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: "Resolved: That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease."

In the Crittenden Resolution, by "the established institutions of those states," the U.S. Congress was referring to slavery. For President Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took priority over addressing the national blight of slavery. Americans today would be well served to recall the written words passed by the U.S. Congress in 1861 regarding the real reasons why the seceding American States were being invaded by force of arms by President Lincoln.

Many Americans today also contend Lincoln waged the war to preserve the Union. They mistakenly believe Lincoln took the oath of office as President to preserve the Union- at all costs. Lincoln took no such oath- he took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Dr. Livingston observes America has never fully come to terms with the evil of waging total war against a American civilian population of unimaginable horror and brutality that ravaged the South. The War Between the States was arguably the bloodiest conflict of the 19th Century, and it left Europeans aghast at the destruction unleashed against the southern States, a mere 80 years after the greatest triumph of human liberty and the right to self-determination the world has ever known- killing one-fourth of its able-bodied male population and leaving untold hundreds of thousands more Southern soldiers maimed; and women, children, the elderly, slaves and freemen orphaned, homeless, starving and destitute; merely to preserve a Northeastern industrial empire. Dr. Livingston concludes that if Americans today are never forced to confront these essential truths, then our American nation can never hope to achieve the moral and political maturity that would result from having fully considered them.

Today, Warrenton and Fauquier County, Virginia recall a proud and distinguished Confederate heritage, as the home of such notable leaders as General (and later U.S. Senator) Eppa Hunton; two-term Virginia Governor and Major General William "Extra Billy" Smith; and General William Henry Fitzhugh Payne. Thomas Marshall, grandson of John Marshall, commanded the 7th Virginia Cavalry after the death of Turner Ashby, is recalled among many other local heroes who answered the summons to defend their native Virginia. General Lunsford Lindsay Lomax farmed near Warrenton after the war. All were heroic men who lived in a heroic age.

Compatriot George V. Godfrey’s research indicates Warrenton's town cemetery holds the remains of almost 900 Confederate soldiers; approximately 600 having died in that great struggle. Two Confederate Generals, William Henry Fitzhugh Payne and Lunsford Lindsay Lomax are buried there. Captain John Quincy Marr, the first Confederate soldier to die in the War Between the States, rests in his home town cemetery. And it should be noted Warrenton is the final resting place of Colonel John S. Mosby.

The Virginia Division S.C.V. Commander notes the citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to peacefully, legally secede from the voluntary union of States as bequeathed by the Founders. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our Republic and represent the foundation on which our nation was built.

Today, the spirit of the Founders, and those brave individuals who sacrificed all for our Constitutional Government in the mid-19th Century, lives on in the hearts of the more than 3,100 members of the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans. The Black Horse Camp #780 S.C.V. encourages all eligible males of lineal descent to join our heritage preservation ranks by contacting Commander David Goetz at: or via our web site:

The S.C.V. is the direct heir of the United Confederate Veterans, and the oldest hereditary organization for male descendents of Confederate soldiers. Membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans is open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces. Organized at Richmond, Virginia in 1896, the S.C.V. continues to serve as a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to ensuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy is the outgrowth of many local memorial, monument, and Confederate home associations and auxiliaries to camps of United Confederate Veterans that were organized after the War Between the States. The National Association of the Daughters of the Confederacy was organized in Nashville, Tenn., on September 10, 1894. Membership is open to women no less than 16 years of age who are blood descendants, lineal or collateral, of men and women who served honorably in the Army, Navy or Civil Service of the Confederate States of America, or gave Material Aid to the Cause. The objectives of the U.D.C. organization are Historical, Educational, Benevolent, Memorial and Patriotic, including to collect and preserve the material necessary for a truthful history of the War Between the States and to protect, preserve, and mark the places made historic by Confederate valor.

The Black Horse Chapter #9, United Daughters of the Confederacy of Warrenton, Virginia, encourages all eligible females to join their heritage preservation ranks by contacting the Virginia Division U.D.C. web site at:

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Who Died and Made these People Kings?

Re: Taking on Confederacy-era values
NAACP takes stand against southern celebrations

Recently, a columnist named Dwight Ott wrote a piece about “Southern celebrations of the War Between the States,” a piece which appeared in several newspapers. I learned many things from this article.

I learned that the NAACP is displeased with such celebrations and that it is “taking a stand against them.” I learned that Lonnie Randolph of the South Carolina NAACP was very unhappy over the Secession Ball that was held in that state last December, because, among other things, he considers the Confederacy to have been a “terrorist organization.” He is also displeased at the prospect of further celebrations and seems to be making plans to make life as miserable as possible for those of us who see value in such celebrations.

I also learned that a man in New Jersey named Sollie Walker is displeased. I am not sure who Sollie Walker is or why his feelings demand national attention but apparently his feelings are very important, or at least more important than mine.

I learned that “to many”, such celebrations commemorate “the invasion of the U.S. government by a terrorist organization which had as its objective, the preservation of the buying and selling of human beings.” I learned that this buying and selling constituted something called “theft of services.” As in all cases like it where the words “to many” appear, no one says how “many” is “to many.”

I learned that Nat Turner was the great great great brother in law (or something like that) to Amina Josey Turner of the North Carolina NAACP. Amina seems to be proud to be related, at least by marriage, to ole Nat, but isn’t too happy about those white folks who are related to Confederates being proud of their relations.

I learned that there is a tourist boycott of South Carolina which has been successful in frightening away NCAA tournaments, but which has had limited success in scaring away tourists, particularly black tourists. The article says that the reason African American tourists still visit that state is that they are unaware of the boycott.

I also learned that South Carolina and Mississippi are two states that still fly the Confederate flag at their capitols and that this is a very bad thing. Derrick Johnson, head of the Mississippi chapter of the NAACP could not be reached for comment on this matter. This is very strange, as NAACP officials usually love cameras and interviews.

I learned that the white man is still keeping da’ black man down and prisons, which are full of black inmates, are nothing more than “Jim Crow” reincarnated. Apparently the black prisoners in those institutions are serving hard time for nothing more than drug-related misdemeanors – and this is a very unfair and bad thing.

I learned that there are over 1000 “hate groups” in the United States, that the number of such groups is growing daily, and that this is very very bad. I know this because the Southern Poverty Law Center tells me so.

I learned that during the Reconstruction Period, white southerners worked toward “redeeming” and “restoring” their states, and that this was “white supremacy.” “Redemption” and “restoration” are very bad things, you see.

And I learned that Al Sharpton knows how to do the Nazi salute.

Let’s see, did I forget anything? Nope! Ok, want to know what I think of all this? I thought you’d never ask!

Who invaded who? As I recall, it wasn’t the United States government that got invaded, it was the United States government that did the invading. For one thing, the South seceded legally, For another, the Confederate government sent 3 representatives to Washington in March 1861 to meet with Lincoln and discuss the peaceful removal of Federal troops from Fort Sumter. Lincoln ignored them for a month and instead sent a fleet of a dozen heavily armed warships and hundreds of troops on an alleged “take out” food delivery. And I do not remember the South invading the North. What I do remember is many Southerners saying, “all we ask is to be left alone!” Hardly sounds like the words of a people hell bent on invading someone. I wonder if Mr. Ott ever read Lincoln’s April 1861 proclamation calling for 75000 volunteers to invade the Southern states, or if he is aware that Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina and Virginia seceded because they saw that invasion as an infringement upon liberty itself? Yet somehow, it appears, at least according to NAACP doctrine, it was the Confederacy that did the invading?

Ott makes a point of saying that Amina Josey Turner and her husband are related to Nat Turner. I wonder if either Ott or the Turners would enjoy reading an unedited account of Turner’s uprising, complete with infant brain bashing and child beheadings? I wonder if they know or care that out of the 61 white people killed by their relation and his followers, that 47 of them were women and children? Talk about a “painful reminder”!

And the South Carolina boycott has had limited success in keeping black tourists out because these tourists are unaware of it? Sure, whatever you say guys. I guess these two babes didn’t get the word either.

When it comes to the Reconstruction period, Ott and others don’t seem to care for the words “redemption” and “restoration.” I guess that no one wants to hear that the Reconstruction governments, whose political offices were filled with illiterate black men fresh out of slavery, left the South with 4 times the debt that it had when it finished the war, and that the collective job performance of these men would make Marion Barry look like Fiorello LaGuardia! To dump such men on their collective asses sure seems like “restoration” or “redemption” to me. Let’s ask a few questions – how is it that an illiterate field worker who was picking cotton 2 or 3 years ago can make such a giant leap of progress, that in that time he can become a competent judge, legislator or commissioner? The answer is obvious – he can’t! How is such a leap of progress, unheard of in all of human history, possible? The answer is obvious – it isn’t! And what kind of job does the record show that such men did? The answer - see my Marion Barry reference. I have the facts and figures to support my contentions, but I don’t think that Ott, Randolph or those of their ilk are going to want to see them. It would be yet another “painful reminder!”

And oh yes, the prisons are the new “Jim Crow” huh? And all the black men there are put there on trumped up drug misdemeanor charges? I guess that black men committing crimes like murder, rape and robbery are figments of my white imagination, huh? I guess Ott, Randolph and company have never read the FBI statistics which show that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by criminals of their own race, a race which numbers a mere 14% of the population? Yet another “painful reminder.”

And perhaps Derrick Johnson of the Mississippi NAACP couldn’t be reached because he fears being asked about the Mississippi flag referendum of 10 years ago, in which the current state flag with the Confederate emblem in it soundly trounced its proposed replacement by a 2-1 margin? This, you see, occurred in a state whose black population numbers over 40% and in a state in which the NAACP invested a lot of time, money and effort in trying to get out the vote against the old flag! Maybe Mr. Johnson, if he can be located, can give me the answer of exactly how “many” is “to many,” because at least in Mississippi 10 years ago, “to many” wasn’t very “many” at all!

And it’s sad, very sad, because it doesn’t have to be this way. I can name at least one small Southern town where blacks and whites not only get along but help each other celebrate their respective histories. That town shall remain nameless for its own protection, lest it cease to be a flyover zone for those self-absorbed, talent-challenged individuals who make their living trying to stir up discontent among their fellow men. I like that town, and I like the people who live there, black as well as white. It’s peaceful there, and I’d like to keep it that way.

And what exactly is the definition of a “hate group” anyway? Could it simply be a group that does not share the Southern Poverty Law Circus’ view of the world? How do we know how many individuals are in each supposed “hate group?” The SPLC gives numbers of “hate groups” but does not tell us how many people are in each group. Is it possible that a “hate group” might consist of, say, 3 individuals? Because 1000 groups times 3 people per group = 3000 people out of a population of over 300 million and that doesn’t sound like a whole lot to worry about. How many people have to be in a group in order to classify it as a “group” anyway? And how much money does the SPLC make doing this? What kind of investment portfolio does it have? What was Mo’ Dees’ original occupation? How about digging up transcripts from his last divorce trial, if for nothing else than to see what kind of character he really is? And for an organization which trumpets the cause of minorities as much as it does, one might think that the racial and ethnic makeup of its workforce would be a model of “diversity.” Is it such a model? And if there are or have been minority employees, what do they think of their work experience at the SPLC? Are there any mainstream journalists out there with the balls to ask these questions? Didn’t think so.

And as far as that oft-used word “terrorism” goes, it seems that these days a terrorist can simply be anyone that you don’t like. All you have to do is to point your finger at someone and scream the word, much the same way colonists in Salem pointed their fingers at their enemies and yelled “witch” some 300+ years ago. I also observe that these days “terrorists” all seem to be white people, especially those who sport Ron Paul bumper stickers or fly Confederate flags or who speak openly about closing the borders or about the importance of the Constitution. These days when I hear “terrorism” I seldom hear names like Mohammed, Ziad, Ahmed, Saeed, Mohand, Hamza,, Fayez, Marwan, Abdulaziz, Wail, Waleed, Satam, Salem, Hani, Nawaf, Majed, or Khalid. Those by the way were the actual first names of the September 11th hijackers. These guys didn’t fly Confederate flags, they didn’t sport Ron Paul bumper stickers and they didn’t give a rat’s patoot about the Constitution. It seems that despite 3000 of us being killed that day that we seem to have forgotten who exactly the terrorists were. But instead of pointing the finger where it belongs, we point it at each other. I submit that there is no need to track down Osama Bin Laden because he’s already dead. He most likely died laughing a long time ago.

Like Diogenes, who wandered the streets of ancient Athens with a lantern looking for an honest man, I wander modern day America, looking for an NAACP spokesman who can calmly and rationally explain to me where it is written that we all must bow to whatever his organization happens to decree? I look for such a man who can explain to me who it was that died and made him and others like him the kings of us all? I’m not likely to find that man though. Those in the NAACP and similar organizations long ago came to believe that such explanations are beneath them. They have grown accustomed to simply uttering the holy words, “civil rights” and watching people fall down on their knees gushing with reverence. Sadly, “many” stupid white people have grown comfortable with living their lives on their knees. I would settle for finding a white man in some public position who had the “cajones” to stand up and ask that question of the Lords of Civil Rights, but I fear that these days I’m less likely to find such a man than I am to find an NAACP official who thinks that his sh** does not stink. I guess I’ll keep carrying my lantern.

And let’s talk about “theft of services,” shall we? Actually, no one stole anything. White men did not go running into the jungles to hunt down black men and make them slaves. They went to African chiefs and African slave traders and they bought them, as Africans were and still are the most prodigious practitioners of slavery on the planet. And no matter how bad it was for those who endured a trans Atlantic voyage and then had to adapt to new living and labor conditions in an unfamiliar land, it still beats the hell out of what their fate would have been had they remained in Africa - they would have ended up in someone’s cooking pot or become a human sacrifice. Africans have never been known for exhibiting very much in the way of either compassionate or civilized behavior, you see. Read the diaries and journals of the numerous white explorers like Braun, Stanley and Livingston if you don’t believe me. It’s all there in black and white. About 600000 of the many millions taken out of Africa were taken to North America. Their descendents today number almost 40 million. Many of them, like Ott and Randolph, make their living throwing stones at people like me. I’d say that in the end, things worked out pretty well for them.

Memo to the NAACP and other race card players – it pains me to have to say this - I am not one to rub someone’s face in it, but without slavery you would today, not exist or, you would exist in Africa, if you could call such a thing existence. You would be today, squatting in a mud hut as your distant ancestors did and as Africans still do today, trying to figure out how to avoid being mutilated, dismembered or slaughtered by your fellow Africans. Two millennia ago your distant ancestors were unable to dream of a wheel while mine were out building roads. Whatever you learned of civilization you learned from people who looked like me. And it was also people that looked like me who spent billions over the last 150 years trying to help people of your race. (See “The Great Society Programs” as just one example). So please stop saying that we never gave you anything or that we owe you something. No, we’re not perfect, but neither are you. The difference is, we realize our imperfections and try to work on making ourselves better. You don’t. You either deny your imperfections or try to blame them on someone else. I’m not going to itemize the bill for the billions we’ve spent on you otherwise this article would turn into a book. But when we add up the monies spent over the last 150 years as well as the damage cause by what have euphemistically been called “race riots” and then total up the bill, it’ll be you who owes me something, not the reverse.

If the NAACP was really interested in the “advancement of colored people,” it would issue a recall to all of those black ministers who have turned their backs on their God and on their congregations and instead have gone off to ply the very lucrative race baiting trade. It would tell such ministers to get back in front of their congregations and to start reminding those congregations of what is right and what is wrong. Fathering 70% of your babies out of wedlock is wrong! Not providing a stable family unit for your children is wrong! Not raising your children to understand that education is important and that it is the way to success in this world is wrong! These things are not only morally wrong, they are practically wrong, because in case you haven’t figured it out, most of the people in prison, regardless of their race, have the same things in common, no families (to speak of), little or no education, and no hope. And these things all start in the home. Creating that home is your responsibility, not mine and it has absolutely nothing to do with any historical celebrations of my history that I may choose to conduct!

But the NAACP isn’t going to issue any such recall of any ministers. If they did, there’d be no one left to run their organization. These people are friends to no one and the only “advancement” they seek is their own. And it isn’t peace they want, and it isn’t justice they want. What they want is control.

Several months ago, Al Sharpton went on a cable television network to blast the Secession Ball. Sons of Confederate Veterans Commander Michael Givens responded with a message addressed to Sharpton and his National Action Network explaining that the ball was not a celebration of slavery, but of the bravery of Southerners of all races who stood up for what they believed was right, and who did so in the face of overwhelming odds.

Commander Givens closed his message with these words:

“Instead of casting aspersions and slandering folks, let's come together as Americans and prove to the world that our country is truly great. Why don't we start this, you and I. Let's sit together, discuss our differences and discover our commonalities while doing some good for our country. Contact me anytime”

To date, Sharpton and his boys at NAN have contacted no one….. Gee! What a surprise!?

Bill Vallante
Commack NY

Old Times Not Forgotten In Dixie

By Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Speaker, Writer, Author of book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country” and Chairman of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee.

Tennessee Senator Edward Ward Carmack said in 1903, “These Confederate soldiers were our kinfolk and our heroes.” He also said, “The people of the South have the right to teach their children the true history of the War Between the States, the causes that led to it and the principles involved.”

Black, White, Jewish, American-Indian and Hispanic Americans who served the Confederacy during the War Between the States are indeed worthy of our emulation.

The original Constitution of the Confederate States of America will be on display, Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Confederate Memorial Day, in the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library {on the 3rd floor of the Main Library} at the University of Georgia, in Athens. See details at:

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, Ladies Memorial Association and Sons of Confederate Veterans still remember the Confederate soldier and proudly fly his blood stained flag of many hard fought battles.

The first Memorial Day took place in the South where Northern and Southern soldiers were remembered.

Ideal Memorial Day for Atlanta Confederates. Thin lines of Gray-Clad soldiers of the sixties were met with enthusiastic applause all along the route of the parade.—April 27, 1909, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.

The State of Georgia has officially recognized April 26th as Confederate Memorial Day since 1874....And proclamations have been signed by Southern governors, commemorating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month since 1995. For additional information see:

Southern newspapers once reported Confederate soldiers marching in Confederate Memorial Day parades and sounding off with a husky Rebel Yell of "Yip, yip, yip, which turned the tides of many battles.

Businesses and schools once closed on Confederate Memorial Day as thousands of people congregated at the Confederate cemetery for the day’s events that included: a parade, memorial speeches, military salute and children laying flowers on the soldiers' graves.

Efforts to mark Confederate graves, erect monuments and hold memorial services were the idea of Mrs. Charles J. Williams. She was an educated and kind lady. Her husband served as Colonel of the 1st Georgia Regiment during the War Between the States. He died of disease in 1862, and was buried in his home town of Columbus, Georgia.

Mrs. Williams and her daughter visited his grave often and cleared the weeds, leaves and twigs from it, then placed flowers on it. Her daughter also pulled the weeds from other Confederate graves near her Father.

It saddened the little girl that their graves were unmarked. With tears of pride she said to her Mother, "These are my soldiers' graves." The daughter soon became ill and passed away in her childhood.

On a visit to the graves of her husband and daughter, Mrs. Williams looked at the unkept soldiers' graves and remembered her daughter as she cleaned the graves and what the little girl had said.

Mrs. Williams wrote a letter that was published in Southern newspapers asking the women of the South for their help. She asked that memorial organizations be established to take care of the thousands of Confederate graves from the Potomac River to the Rio Grande. She also asked the state legislatures to set aside a day in April to remember the men who wore the gray. With her leadership April 26 was officially adopted in many states. She died in 1874, but not before her native state of Georgia adopted it as a legal holiday.

The Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans joins the nation in commemorating the Sesquicentennial--150th Anniversary of the War Between the States now through 2015. See additional information at:

VOTE NOW: Are You Offended to See a Confederate Flag Fly?



Please consider making a contribution to SLRC to aid in this fight.
Chuck Demastus - Southern Heritage News & Views

MEMPHIS – Officials at the Veterans’ Administration hospital here ordered 75-year-old paralyzed veteran Perry Thrasher to take a miniature Confederate battle flag off the wall of his hospital room and put it in a drawer, saying that its visibility violated federal regulations and had “offended” some other patients and hospital staff.

In an interview with Memphis TV station WREG, SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk Lyons said the hospital’s actions violated Thrasher’s First Amendment rights, and indicated the SLRC was prepared to become involved in helping Thrasher and his family pursue legal remedies if they decide to do so.

“The First Amendment applies to the hospital,” Lyons told a reporter. “You can’t go around to people and say you can’t have this symbol, you can’t have that symbol. That’s flat illegal. They are a federal facility.”

Thrasher’s daughter said her father, a Korean War veteran, was so upset he wept when told he would have to put his flag away. “His granddaddy fought in the Confederate War and it means a lot to him … it’s just his heritage,” she said.

Lyons suggested that while a decision as to litigation is pending, readers might want to send Thrasher cards and letters of support and encouragement, and especially small battle flags. His address is Perry A. Thrasher, Spinal Cord Unit – 1 West, c/o VA Medical Center, 1030 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 38104.

Southern Legal Resource Center

Tuesday, April 19, 2011


By John C. Whatley, AB BMS JD LLM MTh

I see some of our “detainees” at Gitmo are still complaining about their treatment at the hands of the U.S. Government. Despite getting 3 hots and a cot, their own religious visitors, and a Koran (the “flushing” incident having been proven a lie), they want to be Americans – at least so far as legal rights are concerned.

It could have been worse for them: They could have been treated like Confederates.

Let’s take a look at the Lincoln conspirators. They were Dr. Samuel Mudd (who treated Booth as he fled Washington), Samuel Arnold, Michael O’Laughlin, Edward Spangler, Lewis Payne (who attacked Secretary of State Seward – executed), George Atzerodt (executed), David Herold (executed although he made a deal – he was the only one of the conspirators who knew that John Wilkes Booth had not been killed), and Mary Surratt (at whose boardinghouse all the conspiracies allegedly were made – executed). Although not charged at the time of their arrest, eventually they were all charged with conspiracy to kill President Lincoln, conspiracy to kill Vice President Johnson, conspiracy to kill Seward, conspiracy to kill Gen. Grant, etc. etc. Apparently the eight conspirators, along with John Wilkes Booth, were capable of taking out the entire U.S. Government!

Originally imprisoned on ironclads in the Potomac River, the prisoners were removed to worse quarters. Except for Mrs. Surratt, everyone was in leg shackles with a bag over his head. “The Secretary of War requests that the prisoners on board the ironclads belonging to this department, for better security against conversation, shall have a canvas bag put over the head of each and tied about the neck, with a hole for proper breathing and eating, but not seeing, and that Payne be secured to prevent self-destruction.” The padding was one-inch cotton and cotton bolls were placed on their eyes. They wore these 24 hours a day. By the way, Payne was for some reason allowed to keep his pocket knife, which he gave to his attorney after the trial, saying, “Thanks for all your help. Here, I’d like you to have my jackknife. It’s the only earthly thing I have to give.”

All prisoners were denied basic sanitary needs, including baths. In addition, they wore stiff-shackle handcuffs, so that one hand could not be moved without moving the other. Payne was also fitted with an iron ball on his bare feet. Whatever they wore when they came in was still on them. Mrs. Surratt had worn winter clothes when she was arrested, and in the summer still wore them. Thomas B. Florence, editor of The Daily Constitutional Union, described Mrs. Surratt’s quarters after she was transferred from the ironclad to Old Capitol Prison: “Its only furnishings consisted of a very thin straw mattress, an army blanket and an old pail. She had neither washing utensils, nor a chair to sit in, nor a single comfort for her toilet or dress.”

The remaining seven prisoners were transferred to the Arsenal Penitentiary and placed in different cells on different floors, so that they essentially occupied three cells each. In front of each cell was an armed guard. The prisoners were allowed visitors, but there were none: The pass had to be signed by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy. Arnold later said, “Some kind Christian heart provided us with Bibles, from which some consolation could be obtained by the perusal of its pages, but these were soon removed and taken away.” A doctor was allowed to see the prisoners. The guards were not allowed to talk to the prisoners.

The trial was conducted, on the Government’s part, under the “Laws of War”. What are these? There aren’t any, so the court, consisting of military officers, could apply any they wanted to. Defense counsel Walter Cox summed up his thoughts on the Common Law of War: “What a convenient instrument for trampling upon every constitutional guarantee, every sacred right of the citizen! There is no invention too monstrous, no punishment too cruel, to find authority and sanction in such a common law. Is it possible that American citizens can be judged and punished by an unwritten code, that has no definitions, no books, no judges nor lawyer; which, if it has any existence, like the laws of the Roman Empire, is hung up too high to be read? I deny that the Common Law of War has anything to do with treason, or anything traitorous, as such.”

The prisoners, except for Mrs. Surratt, were brought into the court in shackles. Asked if they wanted counsel, they were generously allowed to find counsel by 10:00 a.m. the next morning. Of course, counsel could only talk with their client in open court, but the trial was a foregone conclusion. Defense witnesses were required to face the military panel and not the defense counsel. The Government’s perjured witnesses, being paid large sums to lie under oath, presented enough of a case that the predetermined verdict of guilty came in. “David E. Herold, Lewis Payne, Mrs. Surratt and George A. Atzerodt are to be hung tomorrow, by proper military authorities. Dr. Mudd, Arnold and O’Laughlin are to be imprisoned for life, and Spangler for six years, all at hard labor, in the Albany Penitentiary.” There was no appeal. Lawyers filing a motion for writ of habeas corpus discovered that the President has suspended it.

On the morning of July 7, 1865, the four condemned were hung. Their bodies were not released to their families. Soon thereafter the U.S. Supreme Court decided that military tribunals could not try civilians, so the trial of the Lincoln conspirators was illegal, as was the trial of Andersonville Prison commander Maj. Henry Wirz, and the non-trial of Jefferson Davis (which are other stories for another time).

Oh, yes, it could be worse. They could be treated like Confederates.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

What the War Was and Was Not About

Well, Leonard Pitts, there you go again. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for that man to get anything right. After reading his article that appeared in this paper on Monday, April 11, I was reminded of that statement oft-repeated by the wonderful humorist/philosopher Will Rogers that the real problem in America "is not what people don't know" but, rather, "what they know that just ain't so".

In his latest screed, what Pitts "know(s) that just ain't so" is that the sole reason the Southern states seceded was to preserve the institution of slavery. Allow me to present an inconvenient truth of history that shatters this myth.

It is likely that Pitts is totally unaware of the Corwin Amendment. I dare say that most reading this article are likewise unaware of the "original 13th Amendment" since politically-correct professors, historians, journalists, etc. don't like to discuss it or even acknowledge it.

On December 4, 1860 the U.S. House of Representatives, at the request of President James Buchanan, created a special committee to develop a compromise which would, hopefully, prevent the Southern states from seceding. The federal government needed the Southern states since these states were supplying approximately 75% of all federal revenues.

The committee drafted a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited any interference with slavery where it already existed and would also prohibit any future amendment from touching that institution.

The proposal was sponsored by Congressman Thomas Corwin of Ohio in the House and in the Senate by Senator William Seward of New York. The text of the proposed constitutional amendment is as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will
authorize or give to Congress the Power to abolish or interfere,
within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including
that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

This amendment passed the House by a vote of 133 to 65 and the Senate by a vote of 24 to 12 - both overwhelming. The House vote was on February 28, 1861 and the Senate vote on March 2, 1861. What's the significance of these dates? By the time these votes were taken, seven Deep South states had already seceded from the Union so the votes for passage were made by northern and border states politicians.

These politicians thought that by protecting slavery in perpetuity in the Constitution that the Southern states would rejoin the Union. What these politicians did not understand was that the list of grievances the South had against the North was long and primarily fiscal and the primary desire of the South was to be free and independent of any political bands connecting them to the North (shades of the Declaration of Independence).

Not a single Southern state opted to rejoin the Union. Surely if slavery was the sole motivation for the South, as Pitts and others contend, then the Southern states would quickly have rejoined the Union. Both Charles Dickens and Karl Marx understood this. Each covered the War as a correspondent for European publications. Dickens wrote: " Union means so many millions a year lost to the South, secession means the same millions to the North...The quarrel between the North and the South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." Marx, a strong supporter of Lincoln, wrote:" The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and, in fact, turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural address on March 4, expressed his support for the Corwin Amendment. He said: " I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

How about that! Seems Old Abe had no problem with slavery being in perpetuity if the Southern states would just come back into the Union and bring their revenues. Folks, with government it is always about power, money and territory.

Pitts, of course, is not the only one touting the assertion that the War was only about slavery. In this paper there have been at least three previous articles (Chuck Hobbs, Gerald Ensley and Pitts, again) making the same dubious claim and nationally all the leftist and progressives are repeating the line incessantly and will likely throughout the four-year commemoration of the sesquicentennial of the Great War of 1861-65. It's eerily Goebbelsesque to observe this phenomenon.

I do not have the space to counter other erroneous statements by Pitts (he made two about Nathan Bedford Forrest) but I will certainly challenge his assertion that the Confederates were traitors. It is not the policy of the U.S. Military or government to name major military installations for traitors. Pitts is obviously unaware that Fort Hood, Fort Polk, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, Fort Hill, Fort Lee and others are all names for Confederate generals. Fort Rucker is even named for a Confederate colonel. By the way, Pitts, there is no Fort Benedict Arnold anywhere to be found.

I just don't understand why Pitts has such a hard time getting anything right.

P.S. There will likely be at least two leftist professors who will write letters-to-the-editor attempting to discredit what I have written. I encourage you, readers, to do your own research. It's all there.

Bob Hurst
Tallahassee, FL

The War Between the States WAS NOT about Slavery

By Al Mccray

I am responding to an article I recently read by Leonard Pitts Jr., a noted Black Columnist in South Florida. His article was entitled, ‘The Civil War was about slavery... Nothing more’. I found this article to be very misleading and riddled grossly with distortions of the real causes of the War Between the States. I find it it’s so amusing that such an educated person, Mr. Pitts, would not know the facts.

I am a proud native of South Carolina. I have spent my entire life in what was once, The Confederate States of America. I am currently associated with Southern Heritage causes, including the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tampa.

It’s been one hundred and fifty years since brave patriotic Southerners drove the Imperialist Yankee army from Fort Sumter South Carolina.

The Confederate canon fire to evict the aggressor Army of The Potomac from the Fort was the first official military action to assert and defend States’ Rights of all of the States in the Union.

It also marked the beginning of the Confederates fight to expel this foreign Army from all of the Southern home land.

After all these years, there still exists national historical ignorance and lies about this war of Yankee aggression and atrocities. The War Between the States was about State’s Rights and not about slavery.

Remember that the original colonies voluntarily joined the Union and never gave up their individual States’ sovereignty.

These independent States always retained their right to manage their domestic affairs and to leave this voluntary association at any time.

This voluntary union was for limited reasons such as; National defense from the foreign powers, one language, interstate commerce, disputes between the sovereign States, and matters of Foreign affairs.

When the Southern States tried to leave this Union, the Northerners had to put a stop to this. The Slavery issue was masterly inserted into the movement of Yankee aggression.

There is a reason why the name of our territory in North America is called, The United States of America. Did you notice the word ‘States’ and NOT State? The word ‘States’ forever proclaims and recognizes the legitimacy of States Rights and sovereignty.

We are a union of independent and sovereign States free to determine our own destiny. This sovereignty is meant to be free of Yankee Federal domination and control. This should still be in principle and practice today as it was before the first canon shots at Fort Sumter.

Slavery of any people is wicked and morally wrong. Domination of one people over another is just as evil and morally wrong.

The facts are that throughout history; just about every race of people has been slaves to another people. Slavery has always been a failed institution and a dark mark in history. One hundred years before the first slave made it to the action blocks in state of Virginia, African Kings were running a booming enterprise of selling their own people into slavery. It was also customary that defeated people became slaves.

Without the complicity and entrepreneurship of African Kings, I have a serious reservation about how many slaves would have come to the New World.

Slavery as an institution worldwide was coming to an end before the War Between the States. Slavery in America would probably have come to an end within 50 years.

The great eternal lie; that the war was to “free the slaves” is still being propagandized today by modern slick Yankee spin makers, the schools and even by scholars. But the facts are plain and quite evident if you were to take off your Yankee sun glasses.

The Army of the Potomac invaded the South to capture, control and to plunder the prosperity of Southern economic resources and its industries.

This Army also wanted to put a final nail in the coffin of States’ Rights.

If, and I say with a big if that the War Between the States was to free the slaves, please answer these simple questions;

1. Why did not President Lincoln issue a proclamation day 1 of his presidency to free the slaves?

2. Why President wait so many years later to issue his proclamation?

3. Why was slavery still legal in the Northern States?

4. Why did President Lincoln say something like,

“I will not free a single slave if it kept the Union together?”

5. Before 1864, how many elected members of the Imperialist Yankee Congress introduce legislation to outlaw slavery anywhere in America?

Here are some useful facts that could cause you to learn the truth. The Slaves were freed because, and only in territories in Rebellion against the North, because The Army of the Potomac was not winning the war and Lincoln was fearful of Foreign Nations recognizing the Confederacy as a Sovereign States.

Other reasons were, the Northern States needed a war to fuel their economy and stop the pending recession, the North need a rebellion in the South to cause havoc in the Confederate States, and the North wanted the hard foreign currency being generated by Southern trade.

Over six hundred thousand people died because of Yankee aggression and hidden agendas. From a perspective of trying to attain a moral legitimacy and high ground, the lie and cry of freeing the Slaves offered a “cheap rational” for Northern Aggression and the economic raping of the Southern States.

Even in 2011 The Sovereign States of today are still under the yoke of ever encroaching Yankee and Northern domination, laws and control. Just look around. Try to go one single day with seeing, feeling the straggling influences of The Federal government.

I hope that this year marks not only the celebration of the brave actions of Southerners to evict the Northern Army at Fort Sumter; it should also lead to the truthful revision of history about the war. Future generations should at least know the truth.

I guess you are asking yourself, ‘How can a Black man say that the Civil War was not about slavery?’ Well once skin color is not a handicap or prohibition from knowing and writing the truth.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011



Why are our 1st amendment rights being washed down the drain? How can it be that an old gentleman Southerner cannot have a small flag he loves in his room in a VA hospital? Why has this beautiful flag, fought under by his American ancestors been so cursed by our fellow Americans?

Brainwashed historians- Brainwashed journalists--Brainwashed authors--Brainwashed politicians- Brainwashed lawyers- Brainwashed judges- Brainwashed teachers and students-- that's why!

They've all been (for over a century now), so brainwashed (via the painless fashion used on Pavlov himself) so brainwashed, that each generation of Americans has been convinced that anyone is a racist nut who declares the myths of the so-called "Civil" War are myths. Black folks have been deliberately conditioned so as to be unable to even consider the real truth as even a possibility. They and most Americans know not and know not they know not. They and all other Americans have been taught that slavery never existed for years and years in the north, it existed only in the South.

The truth cannot be accepted by the brainwashed--that Lincoln was willing to give a gift of slavery forevermore to the South if Southerners would kowtow and pay the taxes (the tariffs)--therefore the war was not started by Lincoln, his Marxists and his Radical Republicans in order to FREE THE SLAVES. Like all wars, the war was over POWER, territory and money!

Not only is that truth beyond the abilities of the brainwashed to acknowledge, but because they outnumber those of us who have taken the time to investigate and now dare attempt to expose the never-ending lies pouring out of their mouths, their lies have become the brainwash poured over all children being taught in the government-controlled schools.

And, most interestingly, the Republican Party and its sister under the skin, the Democratic Party have no desire for the truth to ever be revealed about the Marxists who initiated the War of Northern Aggression. and their real reasons for so desiring to murder Southerners, including women and children.

Too bad bulletin boards full of facts can't be scattered, like the old Burma Shave signs, along all highways.

The first of these should be:


Marxists playing footsie with abolition nuts -- started the Republican Party and the War --not to free slaves-(Doubt this? Read RED REPUBLICANS AND LINCOLN'S MARXISTS by Kennedy and Benson and BRAINWASHING FROM PAVLOV TO POWERS by Edward Hunter.)

Should you disbelieve this truth about the purpose of the Marxists in America in the 1800's, check out the accolades paid some of them as "Socialist" soldiers who continued their failed European revolution in America. An entire article of praise on numbers of these German and other Socialist/Communists is appearing now on the free pages of genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry is an article written by Wolfgang Hochbruck entitled: “Achtundvierziger” in den Armeen der Union: Eine vorlaufige Liste”--“Forty-Eighters in the Union Armies: A Preliminary Checklist . Hochbruck does not hesitate to cite the friendship of Karl Marx as an important factor in the lives of these "heroes."

Hochbruck’s article can be found in toto at:

He contends that he comprised this list of German heroes, so as to counter pro-Confederate historians’ accusations of cowardice which they have attached to the brave Socialists [Marxists] who came to America in droves in 1848.

Read more in RED REPUBLICANS AND LINCOLN'S MARXISTS about a multitude of Marxist-Republicans in Mr. Lincoln's Army . Here are just a few of that nasty bunch::
1. Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of Lincoln’s army was a close friend of Karl MARX and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League.

2. Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. DANA ---close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in Lincoln’s Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent. This happened often after receiving introductory letters from Karl MARX, himself. (p. 196).

3. Brigadier General Louis BLENKER, Lincoln’s army—radical socialist/Communist from Germany—was remarkably successful in encouraging German immigrants to join Lincoln’s army and the Republican party.

4. Major General August WILLICH—often called “The Reddest of the Red ‘48ers” was a member of the London Communist League with Karl MARX and Fredrick ENGLES. (p. xiv)

5. Major Robert ROSA, of Lincoln’s Army, was a proud member of the New York Communist Club. (p. xiv)

6. Colonel Richard HINTON, of Lincoln’s army was one of the Charterist Socialists who fled England. The British police raided several London places of known Chartist connections and discovered ammunition and weapons. Some Chartist followers were arrested and tried. Others made it to America where, as radical socialist/Communists they were supporters of Lincoln and involved in propaganda via writing for newspapers and other publications. Hinton was an associate of the terrorist, John Brown and after the war was a correspondent for a Boston newspaper. (p. 106)

7. Spy chief Allan PINKERTON, head of the Republican Ohio Department “spy service” under General George B. McClellan. Pinkerton was the most famous of the Charterists, a radical socialist group pursued by British agents. Pinkerton fled to the U.S., settled in Illinois where he became an operator of the Underground Railroad.

8. Brigadier General Carl SCHURZ –as a young socialist, was noted for helping Gottfried Kinkel of Bonn escape from Spandau while imprisoned there for his socialist activities in the ’48 Revolts.

Schurz came to America in 1848. He was a forty-eighter who became very active in the development of the Republican Party and in politics. He was given a high position by Lincoln in the Republican army. A great admirer of Karl Marx, Schurz was cognizant of Marx’s abrasive personality and made an effort to avoid imitation of that. He was an unsuccessful candidate for Lt. Governor in Wisconsin, and became a member of the Wisconsin bar in 1859. In 1860, he became he became a friend of Abraham Lincoln and a delegate to the Republican National Convention. (p. 198)

9. Brigadier General Alexander Von Schimmelfenning, like most of the other MARXISTS /Socialist/Communists who came to the U.S. after their failed uprising in 1848, fled Germany, and escaped retribution for his part in the attempted overthrow. Schimmelfenning’s history as a Socialist Revolutionary was no secret in Pittsburg. (p. 120)

10. Major General Franz SIEGEL, thought to be one of Lincoln’s most controversial and the poorest of his generals, was deeply involved in the German 1848 revolts as a commander of socialist troops in the failed 1849 German Revolution. (p. 113)

11. Commander Friedrich Karl Franz HECKER, (exact military title not known) known as “Red” and “Flagrant Friedrich.” (work cited, p. 113) Educated in Germany, received his doctor of law degree in Munich. He was expelled from Prussia. Arriving in the U.S., he took part in the creation of the Republican Party, encouraged the proliferation of German newspapers carrying the Socialist propaganda, aided in the election of Lincoln, and propagandized heavily among German immigrants for volunteers for the Republican Army. He was named Commander of a regiment he raised of Germans. (p. 113)
Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends

Please LIKE my
Southern Heritage News
& Views Facebook page
share it with friends.